In Defense of Negativity

September 4, 2011

I often hear criticism of "negative campaigning" in the
free software movement. For example, in reply to a blog post I
once wrote about an FSF campaign, several people argued against,
"negative campaigning of any sort, in any realm." Drawing an
analogy to political smear
campaigns, some members of the free software community have taken
the position that negative
campaigning in general is not useful and that negativity has no
place in our advocacy.

First, it is important to be clear on what we mean by a negative
campaigns. I believe that there is a fundamental difference between
speaking out against policies or actions and smear campaigns that
employ untrue claims, ad hominem attacks, and that attempt to avoid a
real conversation about issues. I will categorically condemn the
latter form of smear campaigning in campaigns for software freedom or
for anything else.

That said, negativity directed at negativity has had a positive effect
in many social movements. I have supported and participated in
"negative" campaigns against proprietary software, software patents,
DRM, centralized network services, and the firms behind these
practices. I've done so because I believe that if one is taking an
ethical position, it is justified, and often necessary, to not only
speak about the benefits of freedom but against acts of dispossession
and disenfranchisement.

In some of the most effective social movements, unambiguously negative
messages have been central. Should a campaign for abolishing child
labor talk only about how valuable adult workers are to their
employers or how happy kids are when they don't work? Should a
campaign trying to abolish land mines talk only about the benefits of
bomb-free fields and intact lower limbs? Should a free speech
organization only speak out about the social welfare brought by a free
press and never against acts of censorship? These may seem like
outlandish comparisons but you can find people writing, only a couple
centuries ago, about how slavery should be abolished by arguing in
favor of the benefits of paid labor. Even if the economic arguments
in favor of paid work are strong, these arguments seems irrelevant and
offensive today. Whether slavery is more or less efficient is a moot
point. Society has rejected it because it is wrong.

We have made important strides toward eliminating injustices like
child labor and slavery because activists waged decidedly negative
campaigns against them and convinced others to join in opposition. In
doing so, activists declared the status quo unconscionable and created
an ethical responsibility to find alternatives and to redefine what was
"realistic." While I will not suggest that the movement
for software freedom is comparable in ethical weight to these other
causes, I know that the free software mission is similar in kind.

Of course, if one does not think that user control over technology
is an ethical issue but is instead merely a matter of choice, one will
probably oppose negative campaigns. It is also possible that a
particular negative campaign is tactically unwise in that it is
unlikely to reach a large audience, unlikely to change people's minds,
or be difficult to carry out successfully. But such campaigns are a
bad idea because they are ineffective, not because they are
negative. Additionally, a movement that is purely negative and offers
no reasonable alternative to the stated ill may also be unlikely to
succeed. This is why, for example, I believe it is good that the FSF
uses the large majority of its resources in the "positive"
role of supporting free software.

For those that do treat technological empowerment as an ethical ideal,
it is both justified and essential to condemn the systematic
disempowerment of others through non-free software just as we
celebrate the benefits of software freedom. "Negative" campaigns
against proprietary software, software patents, and DRM in music have
already led our community to important -- if incomplete --
victories. The desire to right wrongs has been a critical part of our
movement's success and of many others'. We would be wise not to give
it up.